Shock, concern over Times killing columns

New York Daily News ^ | 12/05/02 | PAUL D. COLFORD

[kattracks]

New York Times staffers and press critics voiced shock and concern yesterday that editors killed two sports columns that differed with the newspaper's editorials on the Augusta National dispute.

"My fundamental reaction is that this is not a decision I would agree with," said Alex Jones, coauthor of a Times history and head of the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard. "The perception is a damaging one for The Times."

The Daily News revealed yesterday that a column by Pulitzer Prize winner Dave Anderson and another by Harvey Araton, both addressing the fight to allow women to join the Georgia golf club, were held out of the paper last month.

It troubled some journalists that editors squelched the work of columnists.

"You don't do that to people you hire to give their opinions," Fox News Channel media commentator Eric Burns said. "It's indefensible in journalism."

It irked others that Anderson was singled out.

"He's the dean of sportswriters, a guy of the highest integrity," said New York Sun sports columnist Wallace Matthews, who left the New York Post in May after accusing the tabloid of irresponsible journalism.

Late yesterday, in a staff memo, Times managing editor Gerald Boyd, speaking also for hard-charging executive editor Howell Raines, addressed growing tumult in the paper's newsroom, where staffers buzzed about The News' revelations.

One anxious reporter went so far as to say, "Everyone's so terrified of Howell they don't want to be heard even talking about this around the watercooler."

Boyd said sports columnists "have unique license to go beyond analytical writing and - still informed by their reporting - engage in robust argument, even express personal opinions on any side of an issue, within the bounds of sport, broadly defined."

Boyd didn't name Anderson, who told The News his column argued that the membership rift was not Tiger Woods' fight. But Boyd maintained the column "focused centrally on disputing" editorials about Augusta.

"Part of our strict separation between the news and editorial pages entails not attacking each other. Intramural quarreling of that kind is unseemly and self-absorbed," Boyd said.

Araton wrote about the elimination of women's softball from the Olympics and said women faced bigger issues than admission to a tony club. According to Boyd, the logic "did not meet our standards."

A rising number of staffers and observers shared the view that exclusionary membership was no longer the story. After The Times repeatedly tracked the fight in sports, news and editorial pages since July, they said The Times was now the story.

Still, Boyd defended the coverage: "With the ascendance of Tiger Woods and the campaign [to admit women] by the National Council of Women's Organizations, the club has become an inescapable story."

According to Jones, that a Times columnist "can't directly argue" against an editorial is "an infrequently applied standard, and in my opinion, it's a damaging thing to apply."

Staffers asked whether editors now expected greater conformity of opinion between the editorial and news pages, since the Anderson-Araton case has few precedents.

In a 1980 episode involving a Times sports columnist, editors killed a column by the legendary Red Smith in favor of a proposed U.S. boycott of the Summer Olympics in Moscow because they said he was simply restating views he'd previously expressed.

But a week later, Smith was allowed to acknowledge in a new column an "intramural difference of opinion" with his editors and call for the boycott to protest Soviet intervention in Afghanistan.

[DoughtyOne]

Shock? LMAO. You mean these folks worked there and didn't have any idea it was a commie pinko organization. Uhuh!

Could someone please ask the Times when they're going to point out that the NOW organization has no men in it's leadership? Oh the scandle! Maybe when they've got their house in order, they can go after other organizations.

[kattracks]

Actually, they're shocked and concerned because the story got out.

[The Raven]

From A Sullivan's column today

IS THE TIMES IN REVOLT? It's been a big week at the New York Times. My sources tell me morale is at or about bottom as Howell Raines continues his manic attempt to corral news stories and now columns to reflect a party line. The Times has now run over 40 stories or columns on the Augusta National Golf Club non-story, all parroting the same line. The resignation of one out of around 300 club members made it to the front page of a national newspaper. The Times has now spiked two dissenting columns and, according to the columnists, the reason was their dissent from the official position. Even a Raines defender, Jack Shafer, has given up, while Raines' critics, ahem, are feeling vindicated. Perhaps sensing how much damage has been done to the Times' reputation, Gerald Boyd, Howell Raines' underling, sent out this priceless leaked memo yesterday. Boyd is unapologetic about the Times' crazed fascination with the Augusta National Golf Club, comparing it in the same sentence with the need to report on Afghanistan: "There is only one word for our vigor in pursuing a story - whether in Afghanistan or Augusta. Call it journalism." Boyd then denies that the two columns were spiked for ideological reasons. But his memo shows nothing of the kind. First off, Boyd concedes that David Anderson's piece was spiked because it took on the position of the editorial page. But isn't that exactly what the Times is accused of? Here's the rationale:

One of the columns focused centrally on disputing The Times's editorials about Augusta. Part of our strict separation between the news and editorial pages entails not attacking each other. Intramural quarreling of that kind is unseemly and self-absorbed. Discussion of editorials may arise when we report on an issue; fair enough. But we do not think they should be the issue.

Where to start with this? First off, a self-confident paper would be perfectly happy to have some internal debate. Second, if you really had to, you could ask the columnist to remove the direct reference to the Times editorial page and make his argument instead. But notice the slipperiness of this Boyd's logic in any case. Intramural civility is the rule. Which means no open disagreement with the editorial page. Which is dictated by Raines. So "civility" is a euphemism for conformity - especially on contentious issues. And then notice how self-defeating it is. The fact is that the Times has become "the issue" - but not because of dissenting columnists but because of the ham-fisted way in which those columnists have been treated.

[The Raven]

Is the tradition of Bobby Jones any different than the tradition of Howell Raines? Substitute conservative ideologists for male golfers and - there! You have it !!

Howell is worse, however. Bobby Jones didn't strive for a government solution. Howell would be ecstatic if the government took away my freedom to join an all-male club.

[Clinton Is Scum]

I wonder if all the folks on this site who defend Free Republic's ban on certain web sites (e.g., VDare and American Patrol) will step up to defend the New York Times. Or is censorship bad only when you agree with what is being censored?

[Deep_6]

re:
"..Or is censorship bad only when you agree with what is being censored?.."

Well, aside from that "conservative ideology"....

It's been all newspaper's beginnings, to be supportive of a particular
political party's agenda. Wasn't that, their primary role? So why then
would it "shock" anyone, to read that any news media censors it's
stories; reporting in the style that suits their needs? It is their purpose
to do so.

Big deal.

 

[goldstategop]

Vdare and American Patrol admittedly reflect a stream of American nationalist opinion that some might consider to be on the fringe of conservatism. Its a far cry from advocating outright racism however. I'm not sure if FR bans any sites apart from those that openly advocate racism, violence, and the overthrow of the U.S government. There are are good reasons for excluding certain sites from FR's purview both because we don't want the kooks, wackos, and crazies to define us as they have done to the liberals and we don't want conservatism to be seen as embracing disloyalty to America or adocating hostility to its constitutional principles of limited government. But Jim Rob would be the first to tell people that as a general rule FR doesn't ban sites because they just happen to express a politically incorrect opinion and we are all committed to the fullest expression of the First Amendment on here.

[CDHart]

"Or is censorship bad only when you agree with what is being censored?"

I wrote a weekly column for our local paper for about three years. One of them didn't run, and when I asked the editor why, he said the publisher didn't agree with it. I asked what about the First Amendment, freedom of the press, etc. He said you only have freedom of the press if you own the press. Cynical but true.

Carolyn

P.S. I love your screen name.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

we don't want the kooks, wackos, and crazies to define us as they have done to the liberals and we don't want conservatism to be seen as embracing disloyalty to America or adocating hostility to its constitutional principles

Right on! Well said.

There should be a whole thread dedicated to what you just wrote.

[FreedomPoster]

>>"Part of our strict separation between the news and editorial pages entails not attacking each other. Intramural quarreling of that kind is unseemly and self-absorbed," Boyd said.

The Times doesn't require internal squabbling to be unseemly and self-absorbed. In fact, they easily manage to be both, without any "intramural quarrelling".

[KSCITYBOY]

Rats and leftys appear to be losing control of the media and they are really starting to do stupid things. Their intolerance of non-pc thought is showing.

[Clinton Is Scum]

"I'm not sure if FR bans any sites apart from those that openly advocate racism, violence, and the overthrow of the U.S government."

As I noted, Free Republic bans Vdare and Americanpatrol. Neither site advocates racism, violence, or the overthrow of the U.S. government. Both sites express sentiments that are well within mainstream public opinion (e.g., opposition to affirmative action, immigration, bilingual education, and multiculturalism).

[DoughtyOne]

True.